DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/04/2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the engagement portions as recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “plurality of claws is provided” and “plurality of fitted portions is provided” should both read “are provided” as both elements are plural. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3 and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the plurality of engagement portions are unclear as it is unknown what specific part of the structure the claim is referring to. Also, it is unclear what “hidden” means in this context as the claim later states “the lid member has a plurality of holes at positions corresponding to the plurality of engagement portions” which would seemingly reveal the engagement portions rendering them not hidden. For these reasons the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Regarding claim 2, the directions cited in the claim including “a direction of pressing”, “toward an outside” and “direction of releasing engagement” are not clearly defined in the claim, because the claim fails to recite a particular frame of reference for which inside and outside can be interpreted as. Because of this it is unclear what specific directions are being referred to rendering the claim indefinite. Furthermore, the claim recites no particular structure and seems to be just a functional recitation.
Regarding claim 5, the repetition of the phrase “the case body has a bottomed rectangular cylindrical shape” from claim 1 and the phrase “an opening” (instead of the opening) makes it seem like there is additional part on the case that has a bottomed rectangular cylindrical shape and that there is an additional opening that the lid member covers. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. This rejection could be overcome by using language such as the following: “wherein the bottomed cylindrical shape of the case body is a bottomed rectangular cylindrical shape with the opening at one end.”
For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted by the examiner as follows:
Claim 1: the engagement portions are interpreted to be where the area where the fitted portions and claws meet as shown in Fig. 9.
Claim 1 cont: a plurality of engagement portions in which the plurality of fitting claws and the plurality of fitted portions are engaged, respectively, is located while
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hattori et al. (DK 2039520 T4).
Regarding claim 1, Hattori et al teaches a case (Fig. 3(b) element 20 and paragraph [0018]), storing a liquid pack for containing a liquid (Fig. 5 element 100 and paragraph [0026]),
that includes a case body having a bottomed cylindrical shape with an opening at one end (Fig. 3b element 20 specifically the rounded corners), and
a lid member (Fig. 2(b) element 21 and paragraph [0020]) that covers the opening of the case body (Fig. 3(b) element 90 and paragraph [0020]), and is formed through fitting of the case body and the lid member in a state in which the lid member closes the opening (paragraph [0020]);
a plurality of fitting claws that is provided in one of the lid member and the case body (Fig. 10(a) and 10(b) elements 120 and 126); and
a plurality of fitted portions that is provided in another one of the lid member and the case body and configured to be engaged with the plurality of fitting claws (Fig. 10(a) and 10(b) elements 182 and 183 and paragraph [0059] and [0060]),
wherein a plurality of engagement portions in which the plurality of fitting claws and the plurality of fitted portions are engaged, respectively, is located while being covered on at least one side(Fig. 10(a) and 10(b) where elements 182 and 120 meet), and
the lid member has a plurality of holes at positions corresponding to the plurality of engagement portions, respectively (see element 1 and 2 of below labeled version of Fig. 11(a) and 11(b)).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hattori et al. teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and a direction of pressing an inner wall surface of the case toward an outside is a direction of releasing engagement of the fitting claws and the fitted portions (If the case is pressed in the in the direction of the red arrows, as shown in the modified version of Fig. 9, the claws 120 and 126 would unhook from the fitted portions 182 and 183).
PNG
media_image2.png
647
617
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Hattori et al. teaches all the elements of claim 2 as stated above and the lid member has a pair of extension portions between which an end portion of the case body on a side of the opening is interposed (Fig. 9 elements 164 and 163),
either the fitting claws or the fitted portions are provided inside the pair of extension portions (Fig. 9), and
a direction of pressing an inner wall surface of the pair of extension portions toward an outside is a direction of releasing engagement of the fitting claws and the fitted portions (see the above modified version of Fig. 9 where if elements 164 and 163 are pressed outwards the claws 126 and 120 would release from the fitted portions 182 and 183).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (DK 2039520 T4).
Regarding claim 4, Hattori et al. teaches all the elements of claim 1 as stated above and teaches that the lid member has the plurality of holes at positions corresponding to the plurality of fitting claw (see element 1 and 2 of below labeled version of Fig. 11(a) and 11(b)). Also, Hattori et al. teaches a similar but reversed relationship where the plurality of fitting claws are provided in the case body (Fig. 10(a) element 120 and Fig. 10(b) element 126), and the plurality of fitted portions are provided in the lid member(Fig. 10(a) element 182 and Fig. 10(b) element 183). Note that the courts have held that the reversal of parts is an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144(VI)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to configure the claws and fitting portions such that they reside in the lid member and case body respectively as an obvious reversal of parts of the fitted portions and claws found in Hattori et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all the structure recited in the claim, in combination with and particularly including, the lid member has a lid plate portion having a rectangular plate shape and facing the opening, and the plurality of holes includes four holes provided at four corners of the lid plate portion.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all the structure recited in the claim, in combination with and particularly including, the respective fitted portions are engaged with the respective fitting claws at a position where the respective fitted portions are not guided any further after being guided by the guide surface.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest all the structure recited in the claim, in combination with and particularly including, the respective fitting claws have an L-shape when viewed in a first direction, which is a relative movement direction in a process of fitting of the lid member and the case body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Maeshima (US 20140292961 A1), Muranaka et al. (US 20060139420 A1) and Karasawa et al. (US 20130194357 A1) teaches a structure similar to the disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL F BOELITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMUEL FREDERICK BOELITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/Leslie J Evanisko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853